Index Post: General Convention: Rites of Blessing for Same Sex Unions Passed

Posted by The_Elves

Last updated 6th August 2012 at 7:30 p.m. EST [This post will be remaining 'sticky' at the head of this page - new posts are below sticky posts][For a Quick Guide and continued posts on Same Sex Liturgy as well as posts on Communion without Baptism and Transgender Resolutions see below]

On 6th August 2012 a Member of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, charged with overseeing the operation of the Anglican Communion Covenant, Bishop Ian Douglas approved the holding of gay weddings and blessings by clergy in the Diocese of Connecticut in solidarity with the Bishop of New York.

On 10th July 2012 the House of Deputies also passed the resolution voting by orders - Laity: 78% [86 yes, 19 no, 5 divided] and Clergy: 76% [85 yes, 22 no, 4 divided]. The final conformed resolution is here, a pdf of the official version is here and the resulting approved Liturgy for Blessing Same-Sex Relationships is here.

On Sunday 15th July 2012, Bishop Mark Lawrence issued a pastoral letter to be read in Diocese of South Carolina churches reported in The State and Allan Haley comments here and there is a prayer here

On 19th July 2012, Bishop Mark Sisk of New York authorized clergy to officiate at same-sex marriages both in a religious capacity and as agents of New York State. On 20th July ACI released an analysis that Resolution A049 is legally, theologically and constitutionally flawed and made outside the constitutional authority of General Convention. On the same day the Global South Primates released a Communiqué noting with great sadness the passing of Resolution A049 authorizing 'a liturgy for blessing same-sex unions' and confirming their 'disappointment that The Episcopal Church has no regard for the concerns and convictions of the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide'.

On 6th August 2012 a Member of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, charged with overseeing the operation of the Anglican Communion Covenant, Bishop Ian Douglas approved the holding of gay weddings and blessings by clergy in the Diocese of Connecticut in solidarity with the Bishop of New York.

I do hope delegates from CFL, Dallas, SC and elsewhere will press the Chair for a ruling. Is a provisional rite pursuant to Art. X’s wording and logic? Can the rubrics of the BCP be set aside for occasional rites of any kind? It’s time to memorize Art. X and put the matter firmly. It is one thing to introduce liturgical anarchy and another thing to pretend you are not doing so when you are. There is a constitution. Demand that those who wish to set it aside admit they are doing so. The time will come and is now here where conservative dioceses will want to be able to make the strong case that they are constitutional Episcopalians. This is sloppy work by progressives. They don’t want to do the hard work of changing the constitution. They want to create new categories altogether and pretend order. It is important to have the terms of what is happening made very clear. It is very disappointing the Bishops failed to clarify how a ‘provisional rite’ is not against the rubrics of the BCP as Art. X makes clear cannot happen.

Just came across the text of The Rev. David Thurlow’s [clergy, SC] minority report about the SSB Resolution, published in the Living Church article linked above.

One member of the committee, the Very Rev. David Thurlow of the Diocese of South Carolina, submitted a minority report recommending rejection of the resolution.

“Whereas, for two thousand years the Church has had clear teaching regarding Christian marriage and Biblical norms of sexual behavior; and has upheld a standard consistent with God’s Word as taught by Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” he wrote.

Thurlow added: “And whereas, through previous statements and resolutions the Church has pledged itself not to make any change to this traditional teaching until such time as the Provinces of the Anglican Communion and other ecumenical partners have reached a consensus on the subject in accordance with Holy Scripture and guidance of the Holy Spirit;

“And whereas, Resolution A049 is a clear break and departure from ‘the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them’ (BCP, p. 526) introducing and acting upon a new theology of human sexuality inconsistent with the clear teaching of Scripture, the Book of Common Prayer, the Constitution & Canons of The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion and the wider Church,
I recommend rejection of this resolution.”

South Carolina has a great tradition of taking a faithful stand via Minority Reports. I wonder if this was a “Minority Report of One”, like Kendall’s famous Minority Report from GC003 when he became a household name among all of us conservative Episcopalians?!

2 John 1 4-11
4 I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father. 5 And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it. 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (note I been listening to reform sermons: what being say is no to support The TEC in their cause or give a base when they can operate from)

That my feeling about the TEC, to be pray for that they repent but treated with respect but no different the any false teacher or unregenerate.

Why can’t someone simply ask the Chair for a ruling on whether this ‘provisional rite’ is in accordance with Article X of the Constitution? It is too complicated politically to ‘refer it back to SCLM’—that failed. It would good to have it in the record how the chair responded to the constitutional question.

Why this grasping at straws and quibbling over canonical wording. Inasmuch as TEC is and always has been an oligarchy (however much one might wish to see it otherwise), the only difference between then and now being that in the past the oligarchy accomplished their desires through the traditional structures which sufficed their needs. Since today the “new” oligarchy which has replaced the old in their offices finds the former canonical bounds too restricting, they must needs find ways around the canons in order to accomplish their goals. Unfortunately, today TEC’s ruling oligarchy does not understand that their subversion of the canons is a principle cause of the erosion of their credibility and authority.

the passage of A049 was egregious enough! what is going to happen when national starts trying to enforce implementation - the actions they took against falls church were machiavellian. now i’m hearing they are selling 815 and possibly relocating to virginia. at this point there is no going back - all the king’s horses and all the king’s men could not put humpty dumpty back together again.

Spoon,
General Convention has agreed that the selling 815 is ok with them (the delegates at convention). Whether 815 Second Avenue will ever be sold remains to be seen. I have not heard news about relocating to Virginia. What was the reasoning for that decision? Do you know the source of this information?

Humpty Dumpty (ie TEC) is still an whole entity. Parts have broken off but it still exists. A very broken and divisive entity in many ways but it is still an entity. No one has dissolved the union of diocese that has become TEC. Don’t misunderstand me. I, too, have written that I would like to see TEC dissolved. I doubt it will happen but it would the honest way forward IMVVHO. Let the dioceses stand on their own and be recognized by WWAC for what they are. FWIW, my diocese (South Carolina) may be one of a few TEC dioceses that are recognized by every province in the WWAC.